SCHEDULE E.

The retention of the present tariff on sugar is defended on the ground that this is necessary in order to enable the farmers who raise sugar beets to make money on their crops. It is possible that there are some farmers who are trying to raise sugar beets on lands that are not adapted to that particular crop, who would suffer, but the great body of sugar-beet growers do not need any protection. Truman G. Palmer, the secretary of the American Beet Sugar Association, in an address (S. Doc. 530, 60th Cong., 1st sess.) says:

This year (1908) the farmers of these States will receive $20,000,000 for their crop of sugar beets, from which will be produced 400,000 tons of refined granulated sugar, the gross returns to the farmers running from $60 to $125 per acre, with an average expense of production of $35 to $40 per acre.'

To enable this profit to be realized, a duty which averaged in 1904, the census year, over a cent and a half a pound, was imposed upon 1,620,000 tons imported into this country. The average cost in the foreign country from which it was imported was 1.94 cents per pound. (U. S. Statistical Abstract, 1906, p. 480.) The same work (p. 533) gives the total consumption of sugar in the United States for the same year as 2,767,162 pounds, an average of 75 pounds for each person in the United States. In a family of six this would be 451 pounds. The increase in cost to the consumer is always more than the duty, and was at least 2 cents a pound, or $9 for the family. In the family of a rich man this tax is trifling. To the man that earns $10 a week or less, it is burdensome and unjust. It is imposed upon 76,000,000 people and how many does it benefit? The bulletin Mr. Palmer quotes shows that there were employed in the refineries of beet sugar 4,726 persons. The area under cultivation in 1904 is 240,757 acres. Allowing three workmen to the hundred acres, which is more than the average, this would make 7,221 persons engaged in the production of the sugar beet in the United States. In the address I have quoted Mr. Palmer says: "More and more of our field work is being done by horses. Ten years from now but little handwork will be necessary."

It thus appears that to benefit 12,000 persons scattered through the country every consumer in the United States is compelled to pay 2 cents per pound more for his sugar.

Such a bonus tempts producers to use slovenly methods instead of cultivating to the best advantage. This has notably been the case in Louisiana. In like manner when Siemens invented a method of making glass that was much cheaper than any other known the American manufacturers refused for years to work under his patents because the tariff on glass excluded foreign competition. All this is wasteful. It adds to the cost of production, diminishes the total product, and consequently the workman's share in this product. His nominal wage may increase, but the cost of living increases more rapidly. If the artificial stimulus of a high tariff were removed, business of all sorts would seek the natural channels. Goods would be made and sugar, rice, wheat, and all other articles of food would be produced where natural advantages were the greatest. The workmen would require food, clothes, and shelter just as they do now, but would get more for their wages than they now do. This would increase demand and wages would rise.

It is a mistake to suppose that high wages imply high cost of production. On the contrary, the best-paid labor is generally cheapest in the end, because the more productive.

The radical vice of the present tariff is putting a tax on material-on coal, ore, lumber, and the like. It thus increases the cost of production without benefiting anyone but the owners of the mines and forests. And this tax is cumulative. The increased cost of the ore makes the pig iron dearer. The iron founder makes a profit on the increased cost of the pig. The structural iron that goes into the building is sold at a profit still further increased. And in the last analysis this profit comes out of the tenant. The same is true of the lumber that goes into the frame building. The most burdensome feature of the present tariff is the increase in rents which its heavy tax on all building material has caused.

The argument that a high tariff on a particular article attracts capital and leads to competition in the manufacture of that article does not look far enough. That is its first effect. The wasteful competition that follows rains the smaller manufacturers, and their factories are swallowed up by the larger, who combine and form a trust, which destroys competition. This is just what has happened in the sugar, ore, and iron business, and in many others. A high tariff is the mother of trusts. As to the revenue side of the duty, let me say this: It does produce a large revenue. But it is a mistake to suppose that the rich man consumes sugar in proportion to his riches. His large expenditure is in other things. When he pays 75 cents

for a pound of fancy sweets, the sugar that enters into the article costs perhaps 5 cents. The poor man uses sugar as a necessary food; the rich man uses its product as a luxury. But the same tax is levied on the pound of sugar, and it is paid by rich and poor alike. It is true that in one sense all are consumers and all producers. But most of the consumers are injured and not benefited by the existing tariff. Almost all engaged in agriculture and all engaged in professional service and trade and transportation are free from foreign competition. The manufacturers of iron, steel, and oil already compete successfully in foreign countries, and need no tariff for their protection against foreign competition. On the other hand, every consumer suffers from the increased price on the articles he buys, which is caused by the present tariff.

We should learn from the freedom of trade between the different States of the Union that trade is a benefit and not an injury, and that when the product of one industry is bought it is paid for in the end by the product of another. This would be equally true if our laws were so framed as to encourage trade with foreign countries instead of prohibiting it as far as possible.

SCHEDULE G.

We find a duty on lemons of 14 cents a pound, The King of Italy said that this tax upon Italian lemons was a greater injury to Italy than the earthquake of Messina. It was imposed for the benefit of the California lemon growers. They have the best climate and soil in the world for the production of lemons, and the cost of transportation from the Atlantic seaboard to any point west of the Mississippi gives the Californians a monopoly of the business over all that great territory. Certainly lemons should be put on the free list.

Schedule K.-" Wool and manufactures of.”

It appears from the Census Manufactures Bulletin of 1910 that in the previous year the entire value of woolen and worsted goods manufactured in the United States was $419,743,521. In producing these goods there were used 310,602,279 pounds of domestic wool costing $85,018,238; 164,153,087 pounds of foreign wool, costing $51,648,479. The average cost of the domestic wool was 27 cents a pound and of foreign wool 31 cents a pound. It is well known that many grades of foreign wool are not produced at all in this country. Wool is nothing but the natural clothing of sheep, and this clothing varies according to climate. We do not grow the heavy wools out of which carpets and the cheap varieties of clothing are made, and yet we have a tariff on wool which is complicated and oppressive. On dirty wool it varies from 4 to 12 cents a pound. That means that the dirt pays the same as the wool. If the wool is washed the duty is doubled. If the wool is scoured the duty is trebled. On the real wool, therefore, it is obvious that the duty ranges from 12 to 36 cents a pound, which is nearly and often quite 100 per cent. When this high duty has been paid by our manufacturers they obviously expect in selling their goods to make a profit not only on the wages they pay, but on the advances for duties that they have been obliged to pay.

For another reason the tax on materials should be reduced. The cost of these materials as shown by the Census Bulletin of Manufactures of 1910 (p. 3), is 58 per cent of the value of the finished product. Wages are 16 per cent; salaries 41 per cent; miscellaneous expenses, 9 per cent; leaving 101 per cent of profit. These proportions vary somewhat in the different trades. In the manufacture of textiles of every kind, cotton clothing, wool, rugs, etc. (ibid., p. 39):

306, 941, 830 The capital

There were 31,208 salaried employees and 881,128 wage earners. invested was the great sum of $1,841,242,131. (The table at page 39 does not give the miscellaneous expenses.)

It is obvious that if the manufacturers can buy their materials for less they can and will sell the finished product at a lower price. This will increase the demand, and the result will be a greater product and more money paid for wages. By this method of tariff revision, then, everyone will be benefited. The man will get his

suit of worsted clothes cheaper, the workmen in the factories will get more wages, and there will still be a fair profit for the manufacturer.

In reference to this particular schedule, let me quote from the message of President Taft transmitting the report of the Tariff Commission (Cong. Rec., 1912, p. 10357): "On cheap and medium-grade cloths the existing rates frequently run to 100 and on some cheap goods to over 200 per cent."

It is sometimes said that the woolen manufacturers make enormous profits. Very likely some of them do make large profits; but the figures I have given show that the business as a whole is not done at an excessive profit. What they do show is that our complex tariff, by imposing a duty not only upon the wool which manufacturers use, but upon their dyestuffs, chemicals, coal, machinery, and other necessary materials and tools, increases the expense of production without any real benefit to anyone.

SCHEDULE N.-Sundries.

We find a duty on bituminous coal of 45 cents per ton. There is no possible justification for this. The bulk of coal gives to mine owners a monopoly over the whole country excepting the Atlantic seaboard. Why should our people along the coast be compelled to pay a steadily increasing price for our coal?

DEAR SIR: We wish to address you regarding a reduction of tariff, which is now receiving the attention of the Ways and Means Committee sitting at Washington. We would suggest to you, in fact we would urge you, to advocate the gradual application of tariff reductions so that the annual lowering of any schedule shall not exceed 5 per cent per annum. Any merchant could stand this decline in value easily and could go ahead and trade without fear. If it should be reversed by the immediate reduction of the tariff law, it would prove a great hardship on every merchant. We hope that you will understand what we mean and thanking you in advance for your attention to this important matter, which interests every merchant of this country, we remain,

Yours, very respectfully,

WOOLFE & WINNIG DRY GOODS Co., By B. B. WOOLFE, President.

WOODROW WILSON COLLEGE MEN'S LEAGUE,

SCHENECTADY, N. Y., October 28, 1912. Hotel Imperial, New York.

GENTLEMEN: I was pleased to receive your communication, with which I am in hearty sympathy, notwithstanding the fact that I have never voted a Democratic ticket.

You ask for aid in the way of money and ideas. I gladly inclose my contribution, consisting of a little of both, the first ever offered for a similar purpose.

Sometime ago I noticed in a New York paper, under a heading of "Editorials by the people," the suggestion of a way to operate the tariff like an automatic machine and do it in a manner which, I believe, is in entire accord with the views of Gov. Wilson. I have therefore been looking for a proper and effective way to present this plan for his consideration and trust that through your organization I may be able to do so. The plan is as follows:

For a start, reduce all rates a given amount as 5 per cent and let the new rate stand for a year during which an accurate account of the revenue produced by each schedule is kept for comparison with the year preceding. Any schedule which shows an increase in revenue is reduced the same amount for the next year and so on as long as the revenue continues to show an increase. When any schedule shows a decrease, and therefore has passed the maximum, the rate for the preceding year is restored and allowed to remain for a given period as five years. At the end of that time the correct rate to meet any change of conditions may be found by the same test as at the start.

To put this plan in operation, Congress must pass a law covering the rules and the desired results are bound to follow unless deliberately vitiated by unreasonable classifications or similar devices. Under it the Republican stock objection that it will unsettle business is entirely overcome because no one change is enough to suddenly affect business and one who understands any line of business can predict as far into the future as under Republican conditions.

Trusting that the above, as well as the inclosed money order, may be of some assistance and that we may elect a man in a different class from any previous candidate, I remain,

Very truly, yours,

EDWIN C. KNAPP.

THE SOMERVILLE MANUFACTURING CO.,
Boston, January 24, 1913.

Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD,
Chairman Ways and Means Committee,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: Undoubtedly you realize the tremendous responsibility that rests on your shoulders, standing as it were between the millions of people on the one side who are relying on you and the fellow-members of your committee to see that justice is meted out to them in this perplexing tariff problem, and facing on the other side the intelligent, keen, and far-sighted, insistent, and persistent men who are bound up in their special and privileged interests and who by appeal and argument and by the exercising of such pressure as they may be able to bring to bear are striving to the utmost of their powers to retain all the benefits which this present tariff may offer to their infant (?) industries or seeking as in some cases to add to the favors which this tariff already bestows, thus still burdening the people with present or increased taxation.

You and your committee are the one bulwark that at the present time may stand for the defense of the people against these seekers for tariff plums.

The country spoke in no uncertain tone last November, and the people are pleased and proud that at last you men stand in your places to give righteous and just dealing to the millions whose hope you are the North and the South, the East and the West, feel safe in your hands.

When we read of the gathering before your committee of the men who represent these great industries, and in many cases great trusts, who will contend and strive to the extent of their might to the maintenance or extension of the special privileges which they desire, we realize somewhat the power which they exert. On the other hand, how few of the moderately circumstanced, or those less favored, can appear before your committee to plead their cause which yet to them is, in proportion, as vital to their welfare.

Is there scarcely an article which enters into the daily life of every citizen that is not controlled by a trust and so many of them tariff-protected trusts?

Are these industries suffering for lack of profits? Look at the dividend sheets and the increases of capital through stock dividends on which increased capital the public are expected to pay prices that shall yield profits up to all possible limits.

If we must have a tariff as for the present appears to be a necessity-should it not be reduced in all its schedules to the lowest limit, making those schedules bear the heavier burdens which form the luxuries of living; should not the necessities of lifethe basic things come in without tax or with the lowest possible duties? Is there practically a single industry in the country to-day which would be an infant industry (so called) and which needs protection to defend it against foreign competition? Are not American manufacturers, through brains and skill and machinery, able to compete with those of any nation? Yes, and pay wages current to-day.

Shall the continued giving of special privilege to the favored few be the basis of the forthcoming tariff? I believe no, and I believe you and your committee will say no, and that Congress will echo your no, and that the voice of the Nation will back up your emphatic no. I plead for no tariff on many essentials to daily living-iron, wool, cotton, lumber, leather, sugar, foods which are a necessity to the universal table. I plead for a low tariff on manufactured articles which come next in the scale as supplying universal needs.

I plead for those who may not be able to speak to you face to face and voice their wants or who may not even write their thoughts, but who, nevertheless, will be vitally affected by the outcome of your deliberations.

I plead as one of millions who must toil and live under whatever tariff your wisdom shall bring to pass as law.

You have my sympathy in the perplexities which surround you; you have my encouragement in the labors which you so cheerfully take on your shoulders; you have my appreciation for the patient and painstaking and honest consideration which you are giving to the problems which confront you; and you have my firm trust and faith that you will secure justice for the average man.

With thanks for the consideration which you will give to the intent of my appeal, Believe me, very sincerely yours,

Hon. OSCAR W. UNDERWOOD,

AVERY L. RAND.

RICHMOND, VA., January 30, 1913.

Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: Every man connected with our establishment is a Democrat, and has been all his life. We are, therefore, decidedly in favor of a revision of the tariff downward; and, as far as we have been able to judge, your view as to the amount of the reduction is in accord with ours, but we are extremely anxious as to how the reduction is to be made.

This can be done beneficially, or it can be done disastrously, and, therefore, we most earnestly appeal to you to see that the method of reduction is an equitable and safe one.

On many articles the tariff is at a "dizzy height," as you know, from which position it would be extremely damaging and dangerous to descend by one step. Let us come down gradually and, so, safely.

Also, for the purpose of providing relief from the operation of any schedule that may have been erroneously adjusted, make provision for a permanent tariff commission, with authority to adjust such inevitable defects from time to time as necessity may require, and, consequently, prevent the unnecessary and paralyzing effect of a tariff agitation every time we have a general election.

One more very important point. Increase, as far as possible, the "specific rates" list, so that each item may be considered independently and upon its merits. The science of commerce has gone far beyond the "class-rate" period on tariff questions, as well as on transportation questions, and we sincerely trust that our honored legislators realize this fact.

Last, but not least, by any means, we Democrats should not forget the very unique position that our party occupies to-day. While it is true that we have both the legislative and executive departments of the Government, and the further good fortune is ours that the personality of the President-elect forces the respect of all parties, nevertheless he was elected to the Presidency by a minority vote, and we should fully recognize the danger of such a position. Our party is on trial in a most unusual way, and the whole country is watching closely the conduct of the Ways and Means Committee, and especially its honored chairman, to see if the right thing is going to be done. If a serious mistake is made in the tariff legislation about to be enacted, four years from now many lifelong Democrats in this part of the country will either stay at home on election day or vote against their party. Such a result, we believe, would be a Nationwide calamity, for it would force back again into obscurity for possibly another half century those eternal principles of equity and the protection of the rights of every class for which the Democratic Party has always stood. Yours, very truly,

DREWRY-HUGHES Co.,
JNO. C. FREEMAN,

President and Treasurer.

AMERICAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN PARIS,
Paris, February 13, 1912.

To the honorable CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. SIR: The American Chamber of Commerce in Paris, an organization of American business men incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia, with the special object of advancing the interests of American foreign trade, is necessarily deeply interested in tariff legislation.

The chamber has, since its foundation in 1894, followed assiduously all questions relating to the tariff, and has upon every available occasion placed itself at the disposition of the departments of our Government for such information as they have desired, and has also aided in every way American commissions sent abroad to investigate tariff and other matters.